Utah Hate Crime Bill Drops Categories To Avoid Naming Gays

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/11/111405utah.htm

A hate-crimes bill that would do away with the categories of victims has drawn a cool reception.

Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake and a longtime sponsor of the annual hate-crimes bills, said he has been considering offering a bill that would replace the penalty enhancement called for in past bills with an aggravating factor to be considered by the sentencing judge or the pardons board.

Litvack has said the possible new direction arose out of a working group as a way to "hopefully take some of the venom out of the issue" and garner Republican support for the measure.

so sexual abusers of children shouldn't be punished any differently than sexual abusers of adults.

Actually the real "ramification" is that if you take away a named category, then you can insert vague language like "except those minorities recognized by law", which effectively makes crimes against most minorities not subject to hate crimes prosecution.

I think that if you can be crazy enough to beat someone to death because they're gay or black or female, then you need special treatment under the law, just like people who are crazy enough to prey upon and diddle kids.

Why don't we have a law against people running around beating-up people just for wearing white shoes?

Well, that's easy.

Because I don't think anyone has ever put these words together before: "Let's get in our pick-up truck and beat-up someone wearing white shoes!"

I would be willing to bet that nobody out there has ever felt the desire to get a bunch of buddies together to attack people wearing white shoes. Not even Arnold Schwarzenegger who hates nurses.

People wearing white shoes do not need a law specially protecting them from senseless violence.

There has never been a website, church or political activist group inciting hatred against White-Shoe-Wearing people.

Pat Robertson has never claimed that White-Shoe-Wearing people caused the World Trade Center collapse.

Fred Phelps never said that White-Shoe-Wearing people blew-up The Space Shuttle (Phelps blames Mister Rogers-- yes, that Mister Rogers).

In fact, most people wearing white shoes can feel safe and secure walking down the street because chances are nobody is lurking around the corner ready to leap out at them and Shoe-bash them, even if they whistle at a white woman.

Black Georgians hurt by homophobia
To the Editors:

Re “State supreme court strikes down hate crime law” (news, Oct. 29):
Here is an example of the unintended consequences of small-mindedness.

Georgia tried to introduce a hate crimes law to protect people from crimes “motivated by race, religion, gender, national origin or sexual orientation.”

Well, the forces of bigotry and homophobia didn’t like the word “orientation” being in there. Why? Apparently they wanted to be free to attack gay people, I guess.

So, they re-worded the law, and it passed, defining a hate crime as one where the where a victim is chosen because of “bias or prejudice.”

A white man and a white woman beat the daylights out of two black men, and received an additional two years on their sentence because it was a hate crime under the law, motivated by bias or prejudice.

But the sentence was overturned unanimously by the Georgia Supreme Court because the hate crimes law is “too vague.” Unintended consequences.

If the Georgia state legislature, progressive paragons of social justice that they are, had seen fit to leave the original wording intact, this would not have happened.

Sorry, black people of Georgia. It looks like you, too, are victims of homophobia.

More:
http://www.sovo.com/2004/11-5/view/letters/index.cfm

See also:

Georgia court throws out state's hate crimes law (Ledger-Enquirer.com)
ATLANTA - The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously overruled the state's hate crimes law Monday, calling it over-broad. The 7-0 decision called the four-year-old law "unconstitutionally vague." It calls for stiffer criminal penalties for crimes where a victim is chosen because of "bias or prejudice."

More:http://www.net-university.info/go.php?id=aHR0cDovL3VzLnJkLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9kYWlseW5ld3MvcnNzL3NlYXJjaC9pbnRpdGxlJTNBbGF3K09SK2ludGl0bGUlM0FzdGF0ZStPUitpbnRpdGxlJTNBdW5pdmVyc2l0eStPUitpbnRpdGxlJTNBd2F5bmUvU0lHPTEyMnV2dHZmay8qaHR0cCUzQS8vd3d3LmxlZGdlci1lbnF1aXJlci5jb20vbWxkL2xlZGdlcmVucXVpcmVyLzEwMDEwODExLmh0bQ==


Also:

Georgia Court Throws Out Hate Crimes Law
by Kristen Wyatt
Associated Press
Posted: October 25, 2004 5:02 pm EST
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/102504gaHate.htm

as far as I know that's a sexual orientation too.

If there are no discriminatory protections for sexual orientation, and your boss doesn't like you because you're too fat or too catholic or too babtist or whatever, he can now just fire you for being too straight and he won't even be required to pay unemployment.

I love it. These guys are GREAT at making their own bed. Now we just need to make them sleep in it.

Guy: Boss, I think I want to quit and get a new job

Boss: I have a better idea. Why don't I fire you for being straight, and then you sue me for discrimination?

Guy: But won't that get you into legal trouble?

Boss: No, that's why I pay all that money to a Republican-owned insurance agency that contributes millions to Tom DeLay and Bill Frist.

Guy: Good idea. That way, maybe they'll add "orientation" to the discrimination laws.

Boss: If you let me beat the crap out of you too, they might change those hate-crime laws.

Guy: I like that idea.

Boss: Me too. Especially since you'll be kicking-back 50% of the money you get in the settlement after you sue me.

Guy: Okay, just don't hit me in the face, okay?

Boss: Sure. Now, let's go stand in front of the ATM so we'll know it's caught on tape when I beat the crap out of you. FOX News loves playing that stuff on TV, and you'll be sure to sue the pants off of me.

or Bloom County?

good one -- and you definitely get it.

The other side of this coin is that sooner or later they will attempt to use language like "gay" instead of sexual orientation to mean "same sex orientation" and then it will truly be finished for them, because it's not exactly like eye color or hair color that you can put on your driver's license.

In fact, there isn't even a way to prevent a gay guy from marrying a lesbian, dang diggidy darn it, and since they're so eager to prove that it IS a choice, then putting it on your driver's license would kind of foul things up too.

Plus thing of all the part time, one time, band camp time gays out there - do they just get a sticker with an expiration date?

In a lot fewer words, these people are butt damn stupid. They shouldn't be making laws about breathing, cause they'd get it wrong.

... on the grounds that it might interfere with gay people's Second Amendment rights if someone passes even worse anti-gay legislation.

In other words, "It is the opinion of Fictional Gay Organization that some day, gay people might need to rise-up as a group and assert their rights by force, and adding 'orientation' to hate-crimes laws would unfairly punish them for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Think about the effect such a statement would have on the right-wing that is always extremely unsettled by the idea that liberals and gay people might actually break from their "safe" stereotypes and stand-up for themselves.